Wonderful home with recent renovations, exterior fresh paint in 2009, Large private wooded cul-de-sac lot, Hardwood floors throughout living areas, ceramic tile in kitchen and bathrooms, Brick wood fireplace, Large updated eat-in kitchen with granite countertops, NO HOA! Walk to elementary and high schools, Eligible for 100% USDA financing! Get Uptown in 20 min.
Single-familyProperty Type
1993Year Built
0.45 acresLot Size
$293Est. Price/Sq.Ft.
1 spaceParking
Listed by Steven Morgan• The Ladders Group LLC
Listed by Albert Esquivel• Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Paracle
Charming home in highly desirable Catawba Springs neighborhood. Easy commute to Uptown or South Charlotte and many new shops/restaurants nearby. Adjacent to elementary and High Schools. Interior of home renovated in 2008, exterior re-painted in 2009. New 40-gallon Water Heater and 13 SEER HVAC in 2012. Large, wooded, private lot. No HOA fees! Own this home NO MONEY DOWN, 100% Financing.
CANOPYMLS as Distributed by MLS Grid #1
Jun 3, 2013
Price Changed
$142,900
$128/sq ft
May 8, 2013
Price Changed
$144,900
$130/sq ft
CANOPYMLS as Distributed by MLS Grid #914667
Jan 30, 2010
Listed
$149,999
$134/sq ft
Public Records
Jun 6, 2008
Sold
$149,750
$134/sq ft
Public Records
May 28, 1999
Sold
$109,000
$98/sq ft
Public Records
Mar 29, 1993
Sold
$85,000
$76/sq ft
Public Records
Dec 31, 1992
Sold
$36,000
$32/sq ft
Year
Property tax
Land + Additions
Assessment*
2026
$1,821
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2025
$1,821 (+0.4%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2024
$1,814 (−6.0%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2023
$1,929 (+48.5%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2022
$1,299 (−0.6%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2021
$1,307 (+17.0%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2020
$1,116
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2019
$1,116 (+15.7%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2018
$965
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2017
$965 (+0.5%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2016
$960 (−4.4%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2015
$1,004 (+1.6%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2014
$988 (+0.6%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2013
$982
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2012
$981 (+3.8%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2011
$945
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
Tax history for 264 Bubbling Well Dr
Year
Property tax
Land + Additions
Assessment*
2026
$1,821
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2025
$1,821 (+0.4%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2024
$1,814 (−6.0%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2023
$1,929 (+48.5%)
$47,000 + $254,561
$301,561
2022
$1,299 (−0.6%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2021
$1,307 (+17.0%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2020
$1,116
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2019
$1,116 (+15.7%)
$38,000 + $122,182
$160,182
2018
$965
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2017
$965 (+0.5%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2016
$960 (−4.4%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2015
$1,004 (+1.6%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2014
$988 (+0.6%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2013
$982
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2012
$981 (+3.8%)
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
2011
$945
$34,500 + $103,326
$137,826
*Taxable value of land and structures on it ("additions") is determined regularly by local assessors and does not affect market price.
Public record
Public record
Zoning
Beds
3
Baths
2
Stories
1
Lot width
—
Lot depth
—
Lot size
0.45 Acres
Year renovated
1993
Sq. Ft.
1,116
Year built
1993
Style
Single Family Residential
County
Lincoln County
APN
56653
Parking Spaces
—
Basement
—
Accessible
—
HOA Dues
—
Garage
—
Features
—
Last updated by owner on Sep 21, 2026.
R-SF
Residential Single Family District
Established to provide for traditional single-family subdivisions and/or maintain areas in the County for traditional single-family residential uses, such areas, in general, do not presently contain mobile or manufactured homes, duplexes or multi-family dwelling developments. Since manufactured homes and other types of residential dwelling units are accommodated in many of the other residential districts, certain areas of the County can be set aside exclusively for single-family purposes. Unlike the R-S district where public utilities are currently in place or expected to be in the near future, the provision of public utilities is not a factor in the location of the R-SF district. Thus, the R-SF district may be applied to areas which have received both suburban and more rural types of development in the past.